Poll: Legal responsiblity

[AntiAntagonist]

Initially, society, then the individual.

And inherently, there in lies the problem...

society of cannibal's, eating another human is ok. NA, not so much. Is it by regional society or global. Is NA right and the rest of the world wrong?

If we're gonna argue by context- the kid is from Australia. Someone in the thread even mentioned that he was from around there. He sounded as though it wasn't acceptable there.

The only point that the debate I see stemming from the argument made is when an alien society imposes upon another society. If there is no action taken then two societies can disagree and argue.

So far it seems as though the points made are looking for an absolute certainty, but without a central intention. 'Just for shits and giggles'.

 

[conquerworm]

How? They told you everything that was right and everything was wrong and you just listened and followed? Or was it through trial, error, correction?

 

[buglet]

i thought the MacDonald triad was disproved in like the eighties

 

[hamster mk 4]

The parents should be billed for the loss of animals and a social worker should be dispatched to see if they are fit parents or if the child is a sociopath. I don't think the article contained enough information for a person to judge what the child's fate should be. The reporter got most of his information from a zoo official who was understandably upset by the child's actions.

If I were a zoo worker there I would probably be arguing for prison/corporal punishment. However as a dispassionate observer I would want more information before passing judgment.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

How? They told you everything that was right and everything was wrong and you just listened and followed? Or was it through trial, error, correction?

Stated questions still imply dichotomy. Also discounts empathy, which is in-born, as well nurtured.

 

[conquerworm]

If we're gonna argue by context- the kid is from Australia. Someone in the thread even mentioned that he was from around there. He sounded as though it wasn't acceptable there.

That brings in your analytical skills! Why did the media report this? Motive, Reactionary... blah blah blah... Not important and not on topic.

So far it seems as though the points made are looking for an absolute certainty, but without a central intention. 'Just for shits and giggles'.

More the argument I am trying to make is not so much on the right or wrong ness of the childs action as it is the damnation of him for said actions with out thought to, have a heart for the child's welfare. If we damn every person for every mistake, then we are all damned. If we start to release that we are not individuals but a family and are responsible for each others actions, then we as that family are responsible for that childs actions. Once we can accept that then, its not so much as lock him away or send him to be instutionalised but one of teaching, disaplining and eventual creating a better society. Remember he is only 10. Also cause I know someone is going to bring it up but if he had killed, Then what? Well again, that is only half the kids fault. Its like that line from "Everafter", First we make criminals then we punish them. Sure, some people they are just screwed up beyond all measure of sanity and yes, they should be put away. The problem now is we are so disconnected that we just want to erase problems and forget them rather then remembering that they are people too.

(Sorry, for the spelling, this was rushed..)

 

[conquerworm]

How? They told you everything that was right and everything was wrong and you just listened and followed? Or was it through trial, error, correction?

Stated questions still imply dichotomy. Also discounts empathy, which is in-born, as well nurtured.

Are people born Good, or Evil?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Personally I choose 4

Imprisonment is wrong because the child, whilst knowing the difference between right and wrong, probably hasn't a clue yet about the DEGREE of his crime.
Institutionalized is wrong because then you WILL make a killer. To the child, he's done something wrong and suddenly everyone's out to get him.
Freedom is wrong because he has done something wrong.

I would have him forced to go to psychoanalysis (not psychiatry) to see where these dark feelings come from and to make him aware that they are wrong, and the level of wrongness.

We may have the next Jeffrey Dahlmer, but we may also have the next Steve Irwin.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

If we're gonna argue by context- the kid is from Australia. Someone in the thread even mentioned that he was from around there. He sounded as though it wasn't acceptable there.

That brings in your analytical skills! Why did the media report this? Motive, Reactionary... blah blah blah... Not important and not on topic.

So far it seems as though the points made are looking for an absolute certainty, but without a central intention. 'Just for shits and giggles'.

More the argument I am trying to make is not so much on the right or wrong ness of the childs action as it is the damnation of him for said actions with out thought to, have a heart for the child's welfare. If we damn every person for every mistake, then we are all damned. If we start to release that we are not individuals but a family and are responsible for each others actions, then we as that family are responsible for that childs actions. Once we can accept that then, its not so much as lock him away or send him to be instutionalised but one of teaching, disaplining and eventual creating a better society. Remember he is only 10. Also cause I know someone is going to bring it up but if he had killed, Then what? Well again, that is only half the kids fault. Its like that line from "Everafter", First we make criminals then we punish them. Sure, some people they are just screwed up beyond all measure of sanity and yes, they should be put away. The problem now is we are so disconnected that we just want to erase problems and forget them rather then remembering that they are people too.

(Sorry, for the spelling, this was rushed..)

The first point appears connected to the second. The media reported the story because of the likely public reaction. Anger or damnation, as you put it, is a simple reaction for many.

As mentioned in the story the child is 7. I still believe that the child should be independently evaluated, but makes sense to send him for psychological care.

From what I can tell you're poking the stick in to rile people up. I suppose it's better that you do that in this topic rather than others. I used to do a bit of that when I was younger on other forums, or with friends.

Don't worry about those who are quick to judge. It takes more than an internet discussion for them to calm down. The unyielding will, when worn down. Take the ego down a notch though, doesn't serve any purpose and makes people want to respond less.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Personally I choose 4

Imprisonment is wrong because the child, whilst knowing the difference between right and wrong, probably hasn't a clue yet about the DEGREE of his crime.
Institutionalized is wrong because then you WILL make a killer. To the child, he's done something wrong and suddenly everyone's out to get him.
Freedom is wrong because he has done something wrong.

I would have him forced to go to psychoanalysis (not psychiatry) to see where these dark feelings come from and to make him aware that they are wrong, and the level of wrongness.

We may have the next Jeffrey Dahlmer, but we may also have the next Steve Irwin.

I would have supposed being institutionalized would've included psychoanalysis, especially when considering admitting him.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

How? They told you everything that was right and everything was wrong and you just listened and followed? Or was it through trial, error, correction?

Stated questions still imply dichotomy. Also discounts empathy, which is in-born, as well nurtured.

Are people born Good, or Evil?

Dichotomy

 

[conquerworm]

If we're gonna argue by context- the kid is from Australia. Someone in the thread even mentioned that he was from around there. He sounded as though it wasn't acceptable there.

That brings in your analytical skills! Why did the media report this? Motive, Reactionary... blah blah blah... Not important and not on topic.

So far it seems as though the points made are looking for an absolute certainty, but without a central intention. 'Just for shits and giggles'.

More the argument I am trying to make is not so much on the right or wrong ness of the childs action as it is the damnation of him for said actions with out thought to, have a heart for the child's welfare. If we damn every person for every mistake, then we are all damned. If we start to release that we are not individuals but a family and are responsible for each others actions, then we as that family are responsible for that childs actions. Once we can accept that then, its not so much as lock him away or send him to be instutionalised but one of teaching, disaplining and eventual creating a better society. Remember he is only 10. Also cause I know someone is going to bring it up but if he had killed, Then what? Well again, that is only half the kids fault. Its like that line from "Everafter", First we make criminals then we punish them. Sure, some people they are just screwed up beyond all measure of sanity and yes, they should be put away. The problem now is we are so disconnected that we just want to erase problems and forget them rather then remembering that they are people too.

(Sorry, for the spelling, this was rushed..)

The first point appears connected to the second. The media reported the story because of the likely public reaction. Anger or damnation, as you put it, is a simple reaction for many.

As mentioned in the story the child is 7. I still believe that the child should be independently evaluated, but makes sense to send him for psychological care.

From what I can tell you're poking the stick in to rile people up. I suppose it's better that you do that in this topic rather than others. I used to do a bit of that when I was younger on other forums, or with friends.

Not so, trying to make a point, if its not clear, my bad.

Don't worry about those who are quick to judge. It takes more than an internet discussion for them to calm down. The unyielding will, when worn down. Take the ego down a notch though, doesn't serve any purpose and makes people want to respond less.

Sorry, I don't know what your talking about as far as ego... Unless you are referring to my over whelming hate for current society and our current state of pointing blame and individualistic living... Yah, that could be it. But facts are facts, if you take a step back and look, you see that cases of school shooters, mass rapist, violent and deprived individual's, you will see that it isn't just the parents fault, its societies. But its easier to blame the parents, the child's up bringing and so on so forth then to face the real problem.

And Yah, I hate the fact that the kid is being classified as a dangerous person at 7, when I myself did the same things, worse even when I was a kid, yet here I am. I am not deranged or a menus to society. Am I perfect no, but I am not a dangerous person that should have been imprisoned or institutionalized since age 7.

 

[conquerworm]

Dichotomy

Point?

 

[H0ncho]

I love how every person on the internet is an armchair psychologist able to diagnostisize a kid they don't even know based on a single article.

Kids have done worse things than this and still turned out OK. It's just a couple of animals, anyways. The kids parents should be brought to pay for the damages done and a meeting with a child psychiatrist.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

Are you serious? This is such a stupid poll. And the kid is not screwed up, just interested. Is that a crime now. Now the article was unclear as to if the kid killed the animals or if they died because he feed them to the croc. ether way, if any of you can honestly say that you have never killed and animal, reptile or otherwise then you can throw the first stone. If this kid is guilt of anything its being ignorant and interested. If thats a crime then lock up the entire population.

I personally believe in option 2. Cruelty to animals is almost the universal sign that someone's going to grow up and put a powerdrill through a woman's skull and make nice catsuit out of her flesh.

When I was a kid I killed gophers, rats, snakes, turtles, frogs, and so on. I would hunt deer and birds for food. Does that mean I am a horrible person. No. Sure he shouldn't have broken in to the place but killing the animals, I say good on him. PETA-Tards, if you don't like what I have to say, ask me for my email and it is yours to spam...

if it was human on human violences or feeding a human to the animal then I would say that there needs to be something done.

Actually Yes if you spent your childhood killing various small animals I think that does make you a horrible person, or at least a horrible child.

Ask anyone who studies child development and they will tell you that it's actually quite common for young boys to commit violence against animals. Not everyone does, but many do. You people calling the kid a sick twisted fuck and a horrible person need to get off your high horses and realize that kids do this all the time - who never burned an ant with a magnifying glass as a kid?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I would have supposed being institutionalized would've included psychoanalysis, especially when considering admitting him.

Unlikely, and rarely in teaching.

You get committed and you're poked and prodded long before you're thought about being cured.

Option 2 is lock him up, Option 4 imho is understand why first.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

1. Humans are omnivorous. By that very nature, yes some people can live a vegetarian lifestyle, or a person can live entirely carnivorous. Neither is relevant as in both cases something does die to provide us with nutrition.

How many would advocate the immorality of killing celery?

2. Killing for food is necessary, killing for "fun" is n

ot.

We do not kill to survive. We kill because cows are especially tasty. So the implied claim that we kill for necessary food is unsupported.

3. This thread is about a child willfully feeding live and murdered animals to a creature that gets regular feeding and is far from starved.

So he gets his jollies in such a manner. You eat their butchered flesh. Everyone's happy.

4. Put food in front of most animals and they will eat it whether hungry or not, that's just natural.

So's murdering the sexual competition but we don't do that.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Sorry, I don't know what your talking about as far as ego...

That brings in your analytical skills!

That quote was what I was thinking of. I inferred a flippant sense of superiority from the exclamation.

Unless you are referring to my over whelming hate for current society and our current state of pointing blame and individualistic living... Yah, that could be it. But facts are facts, if you take a step back and look, you see that cases of school shooters, mass rapist, violent and deprived individual's, you will see that it isn't just the parents fault, its societies. But its easier to blame the parents, the child's up bringing and so on so forth then to face the real problem.

And Yah, I hate the fact that the kid is being classified as a dangerous person at 7, when I myself did the same things, worse even when I was a kid, yet here I am. I am not deranged or a menus to society. Am I perfect no, but I am not a dangerous person that should have been imprisoned or institutionalized since age 7.

Everyone has parental instincts. Danger is relative. Better to stop a problem before it gets big. (A few simplified suppositions)

Since everyone has a certain amount of parental instincts people will project themselves into any given situation. This is further promoted through voting. Positive and negative consequences alike.

If an individual has shown a proven possibility of greater violence, it's better to convince or detain them until proven otherwise.

The child showed that a problem exists when this act occurred. We are debating appropriate punishment. We do not know every detail, but since our debate has no bearing on the outcome then we are free to do so.

Society may also have some blame, however the criminal justice system wasn't designed to put all of the world on trial. Society uses CJ as a check and balance system to properly handle the odd individual. In each of the stated examples (serial murderers, rapists, etc) the suspects may also have the extra in-born propensity for violence, which is an additional reason to deal with them. I question whether putting society on trial would be worth it. To have a clean slate would mean going back through all of civilization, as historians of long forgotten sorrows only to find long lost empires that were responsible for malfeasances.

Dichotomy

Point?

Darn, I was afraid that'd come off as flippant. Good and Evil are generally accepted as a dichotomy, wherein one never coincides with the other. From my reading it seemed that you skipped past my (vague) point on that.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

who never burned an ant with a magnifying glass as a kid?

Moi.